The Jaguars of the ‘60s were all great cars, to be sure, but some were greater than others. The 1963-68 “S-Type” was, in the opinion of some, the least great Sixties Jag. It had the Mark 2’s bodyshell, but not its good looks. It had the Mark X’s rear end, but not its supreme comfort. More the product of panic than mere parts-bin special, the S-Type was all but disowned by its designer and maker, Sir William Lyons.

Let’s start at the beginning, the 1955 Jaguar 2.4 litre saloon, nowadays known as the Mark 1. This new breed of affordable Jaguars wiped the floor with its competitors. The Mark 1 was Jaguar’s first monocoque, and it was soon evident that the shell could benefit from a redesign. The main aim was to have slimmer pillars and larger windows all around, improving both the car’s looks and visibility. That became the 1959 Mark 2, which eventually could be bought with the 2.4, 3.4 and 3.8 litre XK engines or with a 2.5 litre Daimler V8.

Two years later came the sleek new Mark X. The big innovation was its fully-independent rear suspension, which was adapted from the groundbreaking E-Type, launched six months before the Mark X at the 1961 Geneva Motor Show. The Mark X provided the complete up-to-date package for a luxury car: unitary body, coil-sprung IRS and in-board brakes (discs all around, of course), power brakes and steering, a superb cabin with a lot of room… Borg-Warner automatic was an essential extra: the standard Moss 4-speed manual was known for its crudeness. How could the great buying public not approve?

Between the smaller Mark 2 / Daimler 2.5 litre V8 and the larger Mark X / Daimler Majestic ranges now lay a price gap. Not a huge one, but it was apparent that a Goldilocks solution, combining the Mark 2’s smaller and lighter monocoque with the Mark X’s IRS, mated with the bigger XK engines, could be made to fit into Jaguar’s limited range and plug the gap. Plus, it would allow for a shorter gestation period: everything was already available.

Well, more or less anyway. The new saloon would require its own version of the famous Jaguar quad coil IRS (the Mark X’s was too wide and the E-Type’s was too narrow). And the new car would require a fresh look, without breaking the bank. That was Jaguar boss Sir William Lyons’ job. In cahoots with Chief Body Engineer Cyril Crouch, Lyons worked on the prototype (dubbed “Utah Mark 3”) starting from a Mark 2 body and modifying this, that and the other.

The biggest modification was the rear of the car. Lyons grafted a reduced (and narrowed) version of the Mark X’s sloping rear boot and vertical lights. The Mark 2’s cabin was virtually unchanged, save for a flatter roofline and a bigger rear window – as well as a much more elaborate dashboard and HVAC system.

Up front, it seems Sir William ran out of ideas. To match the longer tail, the Mark 2’s front end was elongated slightly. The headlamps remained well inside the wings, early-‘50s style, but were given a distinctive peaked hood (late ‘50s style?). The grille was slightly enlarged and given a different texture, but the overall effect was still very close to the Mark 2, itself derived from an almost ten-year-old design. To lighten the whole car, both in the literal and the aesthetic sense, the Mark 2’s chunky bumpers were exchanged for trendy slim ones.

Our CC had the optional fog lamps, which does improve the front end’s looks a bit…

Cyril Crouch famously recalled both his and Lyons’ intense dislike of the car’s definitive styling. One cannot help but agree. The front and the rear speak two different languages. The grafting of the elongated rear on the very well-balanced Mark 2 design completely upsets the equilibrium, making the car seem tail-heavy. The slightly longer nose cannot redress the situation, but appears too soft and bulbous, as well as very dated for an early-‘60s design. It looks like a fat Mark 2, the way the XK150 looks like a bloated XK120. And with an extra 300 lbs compared to the Mark 2, the S-Type really was the smaller car’s adipose sister.

“This year? Nothing new from us, old boy,” Jaguar casually respond.

The S-Type, as it is colloquially known, was launched in 1963 with a 220 hp twin-carb version of the 3.8 litre (the 210 hp 3.4 litre option was made available in early 1964) and sold about as well as could be expected. The S-Type was priced about £200 above the equivalent Mark 2 / Daimler V8 – and £400-500 below the Mark X, which now became available with a new 4.2 litre engine that the S-Type never got. In the all-important American market, the 3.8S was $500 more than the Mark 2, which had the same engine and wheelbase but went faster and looked sportier.

I have no idea what our CC’s actual model year is, so I figure it might as well be 1965, when S-Type production hit its peak: 9741 saloons (3.4S and 3.8S) were made, outselling the Mark 2 / Daimler V8 range. That year, the old Moss gearbox was finally replaced by a more cooperative Jaguar unit, available with overdrive. Or one could opt for the Borg-Warner auto. The 3.8S model could reach 125mph in manual + overdrive guise, but only 116mph with the B-W, almost identical to the manual 3.4S’s top speed. Our feature car seems to be an automatic 3.4S – the worst combination, performance-wise, though given the unusual placement of the gearshift (it’s on the floor when it should be on the tree), it may be that this car was originally a manual.

Jaguar’s US saloons for 1967: no more S-Type. How about a 420, bro?

The S-Type was destined for a very short time in the sun. For one thing, most S-Types coming out of Browns Lane were RHD, which meant the US market was not interested. In late 1966, as Jaguar-Daimler and Pressed Steel merged with BMC, the new Jaguar 420 was launched, immediately taking over the underwhelming S-Type’s spot in the US market. The 420 had two considerable advantages over the S-Type: a completely different Mark X-inspired front end that matched the Mark X-inspired rear and the 4.2 litre XK engine, again as in the Mark X (now called 420 G). This made the new Jaguar a mini-Mark X, instead of the S-Type’s “overgrown Mark 2” feel. By 1967, the S-Type was left to rot – the 420’s appearance did not kill the older model outright, but the end was already nigh.

For model year 1967, there were only 1008 takers for the 3.4S / 3.8S saloons, which began to be de-contented (no more real leather, nylon instead of Wilton wool carpets, etc.) from this point on. This also happened to the Mark 2 (now called Jaguar 240 or 340) to save a bit of money and keep prices as low as possible, also known as penny-pinching – a Jaguar tradition. But the company’s finances were now being tied to the mighty BMC, which enabled Jaguar to deliver their 1968 masterstroke.

The XJ6 took over in late 1968, a year without Jag saloons for US export due to emissions control issues.

Another 900 S-Types were made until August 1968, when the XJ6 replaced both the S-Type and the 420 (though that one did last until the end of 1969 as the Daimler Sovereign) in the range. All told, Jaguar sold just over 9000 S-Type saloons with the 3.4 and around 15,000 units of the 3.8 variety five model years. The XJ6 became the sole Jaguar/Daimler saloon by 1970. All the older lines – 240 / 340, Daimler 250, Mark X / 420 G, Daimler Majestic – had been gradually abandoned, bar the E-Type and the Mark X-derived Daimler DS 420 limousine. The XJ6 was Lyons’ parting gift to his company. It sponged up the glorious (but messy) range of bastards, orphans and badge-engineered chimeras committed by Jaguar-Daimler in the ’60s. I’m sure Sir William was content to retire now that his marque was rejuvenated.

The Jaguar-Daimler lineup in the ‘60s had become too diverse and overlapping because Lyons was in a bit of a pickle: Mark X sales were far lower than expected and Jaguar sales in general, by 1962, were going south. Jaguar cut prices quite aggressively in the mid-‘60s to try and attract more clientele, which did not appear to succeed very well: the Mark 2 was getting on a bit and the big Mark X simply did not have many fans. The S-Type made sense in a way, but was unloved even by its creators. It sold pretty well for two-three years, but probably attracted more Mark 2 clients than anyone else. It helped Jaguar’s bottom line, but did not resolve the Mark X issue. Cue the 420, another rush job that had a nice couple of years on the market, mostly at the expense of the S-Type, whose sales were cannibalized.

Lyons was doing all this while simultaneously preparing the definitive Jag saloon that was to be the XJ6. That project got pushed time and again to a later launch date for various reasons, which forced Lyons to make his cut-and-paste jobs. Concurrently, he had to deal with the usual union unrest, the dilapidated state of the Browns Lane works, the digestion of Daimler, the BMC merger, the subsequent Leyland-BMC merger and the day-to-day job of running a factory that produced around 25,000 cars a year. Still, in 1967-68 Jaguar fielded four different saloons, three of which were based on the same bodyshell. A pretty telling sign that things had gone wrong. The S-Type and the 420 were symptoms, rather than cars.

Now of course, alongside my overall “meh” feeling over this car’s history and some (but not all) of its looks, the fact remains that this is a mid-‘60s Jaguar. Any 50-year-old car commands respect, but this is not any old car – it’s a massive 3.4 litre monster, full of wood and leather and chrome and a leaper at the front. The S-Type is not the best Jaguar ever made, but it still has the heart of the beast that propelled the XK120 to the pinnacle of sportscardom, back in the early ‘50s. How is one not to fall in love, even with the least attractive of the Lyons sisters? Have you heard the sound of the XK at full throttle? Have you seen that dashboard? Did you remember to fill both tanks with Premium?

44 Comments

“Bastard Child” is a very apt description.The shut-lines for the rear doors give the game away. In my youth, a friends’ dad had an S-type auto as a company car, and when he was away his son would show us how well it went. Nice car if you were inside, looking out, just not nice to look at.

About 13 years ago, I came close to buying a finely-restored one, fitted with a 3.8 litre. The classic caryard where it lay, still in business and honest brokers, encouraged me to drive it for a good few hours. A swift ’60’s Jag, in deep dark blue with chrome and wood, like I’d always wanted to try? Oh, I obliged. Couldn’t stretch to a driveable Mk2, but this promised even more sophistication.

Swishy, comfy, soft-leathery Jag roaring mutedly at silent speed?

Well, there was leather and beautiful wood. And it rode wonderfully. And it accelerated nicely. 0-60mph is about 12 secs in the auto.

It was also very old. Big wind whistles, then roars. Slow, vaguely-does-it steering. Stomach-heaving body roll. Rather alarming understeer, almost as if there was some overweight 1940’s engine in the front. No ventilation (and no real heater). An auto, it was screaming by 65mph, making 55 a realistic highway speed. And rather than pussyfooting by saying it liked a drink, it was a raging alcoholic, and I couldn’t possibly afford the tab. (What, there’s another bloody tank? Pretty embarassing back at the yard, especially as I’d decided decidedly not to proceed).

And I drove past too many shop windows, where I realised that, despite it being two cars, there was a clear reason why this immaculate beast was half the price of a good Mk2. I never knew till now its creators agreed.

I still sometimes dream of my Jag, but my restored, airconditioned, heated, 5-speed auto, suspension modified Mk2 – and they do exist – costs truly colossal amounts now. The bastard child will never have such an honour.

Because yet again today I looked and thought “It’s actually really nice”, then looked again and thought “Both of it”.

Sometimes reality doesn’t live up to expectations. Some years ago I test drove one of my dream cars, a 1964 Avanti. Gorgeous on the outside, but once inside it really showed its age. Squeaky, rattle-ly, not fast by today’s standards, and a slight scent of age. I moved on.

Here’s my take on the issue. Even a decade ago, I was all set to buy a classic car to play with on weekends. My memories of driving said cars in my youth were excellent. I would be loads of fun to have an old car in which to cruise around.

Then I drove one from Saskatoon to Victoria.

Said classic car was slow, had poor brakes, used huge amounts of fuel and wasn’t particularly comfortable.

This is a really common situation. Unless you were a die hard old car nut or just always short on money, most drivers drove an old beater for only a few years in their youth. Then they moved on to newer used cars and finally brand new ones. After twenty or thirty years of new car driving they are quite unprepared for the reality of driving an old car. Most will never admit it, especially if they just paid top dollar for a restored or resto modded 50’s or 60s car. They just will not drive it very much. They will tell you that they don’t want to mess it up, or “put too many miles on it!” Truth be told, they probably hate driving it, but would you admit that to your Wife?

Out on the road on vacation, have you ever passed a 50’s car or 60’s muscle car? They are usually driving at the speed limit with all the windows down (no a/c) while everyone else flies past them at much higher velocities.

On my last trip to So Cal a week ago I was driving my ’96 Mustang GT, (itself an old car) cruising at an easy 75-80 mph. with a/c and cruise on just about 75 miles into a 400 mile day. On I 5 I saw an immaculate ’70 Chevelle with big chrome wheels and big chrome pipes up ahead. I pointed the car out to my Wife as we flew past it in the slow lane.

I’m probably an old car nut. I’ve had a few classics over the years — a 1960 Sprite and a 1962 Mini most recently. I can honestly say I enjoy driving them over either my daily driver (2012 Mustang) or my wife’s last two cars (2017 MKX hybrid; 2010 Mercury Milan). Don’t get me wrong: the moderns objectively do everything better. Other than the Mini’s good fuel economy (about 36 MPG), there’s no comparison: noise levels, safety, comfort, performance.

But, still, I enjoy the classics more. Unfortunately, they’re not reliable enough to be daily drivers. And I live in Michigan, so I cant drive them at least five months out of the year. But I subjectively prefer them.

Anymore, I’m having trouble deciding what to replace my Mustang with. I don’t want a push-button start*, a back-up camera, lane departure warning, or — especially — a touch screen for mundane radio and HVAC functions. So I guess I’ll be driving my pony for a while.

Just give me five bees for a quarter and an onion for my belt.

*OK — the Sprite does have a pull-knob starter. But you still have to put the key in and twist it clockwise. Yes, I am a crank.

Not tuning, gearboxes. A manual Jag, let alone with the common overdrive, has fairly modern top ratios. Old autos were inefficient, so to give them some acceleration, they gave them very low final drives and there’s only three speeds. Meaning that 65 mph was probably 3,500rpm, and 80mph (130km/h) would be near 4,500rpm. In the real world, 5,00rpm or so was the meaningful limit of a production XK motor, so sitting on 4,500 would be stretching the friendship.

Everyone has made valid points here. I’ll a bit sheepishly admit that I was contemplating financing this as a daily driver, on a lease! My finance broker said “Don’t, people always regret leasing a classic as the daily”. Truth is, the most ordinary modern car is so incredibly competent that even a 20 year-old one barely feels adequate for daily use. And from a safety point, is overwhelmingly not adequate.

I understand subjective experiences with old cars can seem a bit jarring, but yours with this car’s speed and gearing are running a bit ahead of its technical specs.

All S Types came with one of two different axle ratios: 3.54 and 3.77. I believe the US version had the 3.77 as compared to the 3.54 in the Mk2 in order to make it accelerate faster, which was a critical criteria in the US, but I believe the 3.54 was used primarily in other countries on the S Type, for better high-speed gearing. These were the only two axle ratios used on the S Type, regardless of transmission.

I have the specs for the 3.54 axle: 22.2 mph per 1000rpm. That means 66mph = 3000 rpm. The 3.77 axle would have resulted in 3195 rpm at 66 mph.

Admittedly, 3,000 (or 3,195) rpm would seem a bit high for us nowadays, as all modern cars have one or more overdrive ratios. But this was pretty much the norm back then. Of course overdrive was available on the manual box, and I rather suspect that jag drivers who took driving seriously pretty much invariably went for the manual box. The automatic was a convenience feature, and not really oriented towards hard-core drivers.

Regarding your comment about automatic transmissions, please note that a torque converter allows for a considerable gear reduction, meaning that a 3 speed automatic is more than comparable to a 4 speed manual, in terms of the range of effective gear ratios spanned by them. First gear on an automatic with its torque converter more than covers the effective gear ratios of first and second gears of a 4 speed manual.

Yes, the older automatics were less efficient, and a four speed manual was quicker when rowed properly, but there’s absolutely no rationale to fit a lower (higher numerical) real axle in an automatic. In fact, the contrary was commonly done, since the torque converter made starting on steep hills effortless compared to slipping a clutch.

If it helps, they’re either small (Mk1,Mk2, S, 420), or large (Mk X, 420G). The small ones are all based on the same wheelbase/body shell, with some variation. The large ones (Mk X, 420G) are essentially the same car.

Inboard disc brakes are a platonic ideal: they reduce unsprung weight. So back in the day when engineers still pursued such ideals, they were fairly common, and the benefits from less unsprung weight were real. The downside was obvious, and as we moved from the era of engineering ideals to the pragmatic era, they disappeared. Except from race cars and such.

The common use of light alloy wheels, which back then were very expensive, has mitigated the outboard discs. And I suspect modern discs and calipers have benefited from a lot of weight-optimization. The early discs were typically solid, and the calipers rather massive.

This is the Jaguar model we saw crashed to the bottom of a ravine in various British tv series produced by ITC studios in the 1960s-1970s as well as being used for a skit in Saturday Night Live.

The Youtuber who posted the clip recensed which episodes we see a while Jaguar crashing.
1. The Baron – Something for a Rainy Day
2. The Baron – Time to Kill
3. The Saint – The Queen’s Ransom
4. The Champions – The Final Countdown
5. Department S – Who Plays the Dummy?
6. Randall and Hopkirk (Deceased) – It’s Supposed to be Thicker than Water
7. (No idea. Scene maybe incomplete. Could be from The Adventurer – Icons are Forever.)
8. Jason King – Toki (sound not entirely synchronized)
9. Hammer House of Mystery and Suspense – Black Carrion
10. Saturday Night Live – Toonces the Driving Cat

Agree. I use to despair if I saw a Jaguar in motion on one of the many TV series produced in the UK in the seventies. You just knew they were going to be crashed/blown up/rolled/set on fire/thrown over a cliff at some point in the program. Come the late 70s, they ran out of Jags to demolish and moved onto those lovely Mk 1 Ford Granadas’. Damn them!

The Jaguar wasn’t the only guinea pig to serve as a sacrificial lamb to be crashed/blown up/rolled/set on fire/thrown over a cliff at some point in the program. ITC also used a red Renault Dauphine as well. Note then to save on the costs of filming, they used the interior of the white Jaguar for views of the interior.

The red Renault was used in:
1. The Baron – And Suddenly You’re Dead
2. The Saint – The Counterfeit Countess
3. The Champions – A Case of Lemmings
4. Department S – The Man Who Got a New Face
5. The Persuaders – The Ozerov Inheritance
6. Father Ted – Hell

Jaguar was in a very serious decline in this era, especially in the US. It had been the #1 premium/sporty import brand in the 50s, but in the 60s MBZ and BMW were on a rapid rise. The Mk2 was looking very out of date in the 60s, compared to the flossen Mercedes. And the S Type did little or nothing to slow the decline. The Mk X/420G, which was practically designed for the American market (huge/wide) was also a huge flop.

In fact, Jaguar didn’t even bother to sell any 1968 MY-specific sedans at all in the US, so bad had their sales crashed. They only sold left-over 1967 MY sedans, and the E Type.

Of course their renaissance was all pegged to the XJ-6, which did bring Jaguar back from the brink in the US, although it took a few years to really get their momentum back.

Jaguar’s crash and burn in the US in the 60s is not a story often told, because all the attention was on the E-Type. From having dominated the premium import sedan market in the 50s to selling no new sedans in 1967 is probably the biggest black mark in Sir William’s otherwise remarkable story with the brand. And he did finally turn that around.

It’s strange how Jaguar lost the plot in the ’60s (with the notable exception of the E-Type).

The Mk X misfire and the Daimler takeover at the beginning of the decade triggered a weird downward spiral: money became tight, the XJ6 was delayed, stopgap models were hastily launched and cannibalized other models, Pressed Steel were getting hitched to BMC so Jaguar had to follow their body-maker into the viper’s nest that became BL.

It’s a testament to Lyons’ vision that the XJ6 managed to carry Jaguar into the ’80s and re-conquer the US market. For the S-Type, the ratio of RHD to LHD production was about 4:1. Of course, not all LHD S-Types were made for the US market, but it does mean that S-Type sales were very low in the US (1000 units per year, at most) in 1964-66, i.e. same as the Mk2’s usual performance in the US market. The 420 probably sold just as well as the S-Type for 1967, but only got a bite at the apple for that year.

Selling about 15,000 cars per year seemed to suit Jaguar pretty well in the ’70s — especially since they cut down on the number of bodyshells from two and a half to one. But at around 15,000 per year in the ’60s, they were losing money. They really walked a tightrope in that decade.

Jaguars main problem was that they never really had production capacity for more than 30k cars per year, Lyons was right in his conclusion to move the brand upward for more profit per unit. And he was right seeing the goldielocks opportunity in what would become the XJ6 already a decade before.

There was room for something more expensive between the Mark II and the Mark X, the problem was in its execution. The S-Type sold well in 1964, 65, and 66. buyers then moved to the 420 for the same amount of sales in 1967 and 68. The S-Type should never have been, it should’ve been the 420 already from the start, preferably named the Mark III.

There’s also a problem, though the Mark II bodyshell was in essence already a decade old, it looked so fundamentally beautiful and “just so” right only a Jaguar can be. No matter it had a cantilevered solid rear axle, it was a performance bargain up to its end. With a solid trickle in sales, it showed there was a need for a bottom feeder right to its end.

And it did embarrass its more expensive siblings with its pretty looks, showing it really wasn’t possible to make anything better out of the equation. One of the downfalls of the middle range lies in the fact the Mark II was a perfect storm of grace, pace, and space. Already in its lifetime it became a classic in a way its more expensive brethren never will achieve.

A guy I know from the gym has a 1965 3.4 S that he wants to get rid of. It spends most of its tme at a local Foreign Car repair shop. He had problems with the steering and a hard to find part. Then he had fuel leaks at the rear near the gas tank. Now the SU carbs are leaking.
I have owned six old Jags; one for 18 or so years; and lots of cars with SU’s. My friend thinks I should buy it. The car in question was converted to a Ford engine and converted back to a Jaguar by a previous owner who also had the car painted and reupholstered in non-leather. Who knows what engine is presently in the car.
It is left hand drive and automatic. What’s it worth? He threw out a price of $5000 making it clear that he expected less. Its worth way less to me. A Mark 2 in the same condition would be much more attractive to me.

They did what they could with what they had, and what they had was the Mk X, the Mk 2 and very little time or money.

The revised Mk2 roofline is really jarring with that low and long tail. Pretty much kills the design dead. It reminds me of the Armstrong Siddeley 234/236 a bit (though far from being as badly unbalanced), or the GM “formal look” made curvy and baroque.

The 420 is a better overall package, but still suffers from the same issue. The only thing that can match the Mk X’s tail is the Mk X’s greenhouse. But as you say, that would have meant an overly complex / expensive bodyshell.

I understand the budget restrictions, and I imagine that the headlight ‘eyebrows’ were probably just a small piece leaded onto the front panels (only slightly adding to the existing work there). Then they have come to the conclusion that they really had to do more – hence the 420/Sovereign. Perhaps they didn’t abandon the S-Type at that point because the rationalisation wouldn’t have made any real difference to the archaic production system they had…

Overall I wonder if they wouldn’t have been better off to throw everything at the XJ-6 and get it to market a bit quicker?

The MKX and 420G were a bomb on the UK market. Too big, too thirsty, too much depreciation in the first years and out of step with popular taste. Too ‘gin and tonic’ when tastes were moving to more nimble ‘executive’ cars like the Rover 2000, Triumph 2000 and even the Ford Cortina 1600E. It’s interesting to reflect that within a decade also BMW and Mercedes got a real hold on the UK market. The biggest Jags were consided a bit of a joke at the time and soon were consigned to rot on peoples drives, bangerdom and the scrap yard. Virtually unsaleable second hand.

Always the same – comparing the Mk2/S/420. If you see one, just love the lines / interior / performance. Usually any mid-late sixties Jaguar is nicer than the competition.
I have had my (ex-USA sourced) 420 for over 10 years now. Willow Green (a light shade of green), tan full leather interior, power steering, air con, auto, tinted glass, chrome wires wheels, fantastic softly sprung comfort, good performance still today, what is not to like?

The S type was often featured as the villains car on the very successful 1970s British cop show “The Sweeney” roaring around the streets of London getting bashed up.

For some reason the boot catch seemed to fail and the boot lid would bounce up and down as the car drove up and down pavements.

Although the Jag was generally seen as a cads car, decent types bought a Rover, I think the main reasons for its popularity on British 70s cop shows was because they were fast and dirt cheap by then.

A friend had the 420, and I can confirm previous comments that it had a dipsomaniac thirst for petrol, completely out of phase with the times, think he paid £250 for it because no one wanted such a thirsty car. Trouble with the S type and 420 today, the restoration costs outstrip the value of the car, regardless of what people selling them say they are worth.

If you want a classic Jag from 60s and 70s, the XJ6 was a much better car, very elegant, refined and exceptional handling for its day. I had a 73 Daimler Sovereign version, 4.2 with the lower bumper, it had charisma and was a joy to drive, more so than the 78 Mercedes 350SE that followed it. BL quality was very hit and miss on the XJ6 , a bad one was really annoying, but a good one made it one of your favourite cars

The XJ6 was the first British car that did not look under tyred, the XJ12 was brilliant, but its fuel consumption was simply stupid

An XJ6 and later XJS are the only old Jags I would consider now, but as with all luxury makes of that period , definitely including Mercedes, find one that hasn’t rusted

Father Neidemeyer, after I’d posted, I thought myself that the rpm’s seemed somewhat over-stated (and I do reckon you’re right about the tach accuracy which it seems was likely out by about 400 revs on the figures). Road and Track’s 1964 test of a 3.8 S-type with 3.54 gearing says 21.4 mph per 1,000 rpm, so yes, a bit over 3,080rpm at 65, although that’s assuming no slippage. Still, that’s busy to a modern ear listening to a 1940’s long stroke six. On what I said above I’m out by 420 revs. If “my” Jag had the 3.77, by about 390-odd revs. About 7% out, then, which would for sure get me fired from engineering, but probably promoted in PR. On the internet, it just gets me taken to task.

However, I take your point about unreliable memory. Mine has as many leaks as an S-type engine.

The manual overdrive top is 25.9mph per thousand revs, which, as I said, is a much more a modern figure. About 2,500 revs at 65. Also, 10.4 secs to 60 vs 11.9 in the auto, and about 20mpg in the manual, vs 15.5 in the auto. I understand the point that torque converters negate the lack of gears for starting, etc, (the Buick one was one speed after all) but the old DG box here then negates those advantages with its inherent inefficiencies as those figures show. My perception of low gearing is just lots of slip and heat going on down there in a way a modern box doesn’t.

But I confess I am quite wrong about the final drive ratios, and will perform penance as you direct.

What I was thinking was that many manual cars had some form of overdrive by the late ’70’s, which left all the three speed autos sounding and being terribly busy at highway speeds. My memory of road tests where the gearing of the auto in top being short is correct, but the reason for it was not.

Please understand that I can’t do the rosary as my beads are long gone.

If the DG automatic was the same one used in the 1950-55 Studebakers (and I believe it was) then that design at least used a lockup torque converter in high gear, eliminating the slippage at cruising speeds. But I am sure there were other factors that would keep it from being all-around as efficient as a stick with OD.

My 1969 420G did not lock up in top gear, you could see the revs rise 100, 200 rpm on the rev counter when you accelerated, perhaps mine was faulty, the extra fuel economy would have been most welcome

In D it would start in second, and shift quickly into 3rd and stay there for most of the time

What I do remember is that in normal drive it would not roll back down a hill, I don’t mean that it was held on the throttle, it locked, I came to a stop on a steep hill, it felt as though it was going to roll back but locked mechanically as if put into park, but press the accelerator and it would move forward

If you selected 1, it would start in 1st, and it definitely rolled back down a steep hill but could be held on the throttle

Here’s the full story on the BW DG automatic below, which had a direct mechanical drive in top gear, bypassing the torque converter. It was built in the UK, and used in Jaguars and some other cars. But it was not used in the 4.2 L Mark X/420G, which got the more conventional (and retrograde) BW Model 8. The early 3.8 L version of the Mk X did still use the DG.

That Hill Holder feature definitely shows the transmission’s Studebaker heritage. The Hill Holder had been a Stude “thing” for a long time before the automatic arrived in 1950. In stick shift cars it was a simple interconnection between the clutch and the brakes so that brake line pressure was held until the clutch engaged. I am mystified why it was considered necessary on cars with an automatic.

I’m a tad late here, but the silver car’s interior doesn’t look original. As well as the later model floor-shift auto, the central bit of the dashboard, below the toggle switches, appears to be the wrong shape. And it’s hard to tell with the lighting, but it almost looks like it’s received more modern rotary dials for the HVAC controls too.